collections of the Rich and to distribute them to the poor And these were called Septem viri boni Civitatis The term Elder was generally given to all their Judges but chiefly to these of the great Sanhedrin so we have it Matth. 16.21 Mark 8.31 14.43 and 15.1 And Acts 23.14 And for a fuller satisfaction to this I must refer you to such as have given an account of the Synagogue out of the Iewish Writers Next a great deal might be said to prove that the Apostles in their first constitutions took things as they had them modelled to their hand in the Synagogue and this they did both because it was not their design to innovate except where the nature of the Gospel Dispensation obliged them to it As also because they took all means possible to gain the Jews who we find were zealous adherers to the traditions of their Fathers and not easily weaned from these precepts of Moses which by Christ's Death were evacuated And if the Apostles went so great a length in complying with them in greater matters as Circumcision and other legal observances which appears from the Acts and Epistles we have good grounds to suppose that they would have yielded to them in what was more innocent and less important Besides there appears both in our Lord himself and in his Apostles a great inclination to symbolize with them as far as was possible Now the nature of the Christian Worship shews evidently that it came in the room of the Synagogue which was moral and not of the Temple-Worship which was typical and ceremonial Likewise this parity of Customs betwixt the Iews and Christians was such that it made them be taken by the Romans and other more overly observers for one sect of Religion and finally any that will impartially read the New Testament will find that when the forms of Government or Worship are treated of it is not done with such architectonical exactness as was necessary if a new thing had been instituted which we find practiced by Moses But the Apostles rather speak as these who give rules for the ordering and directing of what was already in being From all which it seems well grounded and rational to assume that the first constitution of the Christian Churches was taken from the model of the Synagogue in which these Elders were separated for the discharge of their imployments by an imposition of hands as all Iewish Writers do clearly witness So the Presbyters of the Christian Church were ordained by an Imposition of hands Their power was not only to preach which as I shewed already was common to others but also to administer Sacraments so that it is true which Ierome saith Communi consilio Presbyterorum res gerebantur We have already considered how necessary it was judged that no Ordination of Presbyters might be gone about without the presence and concurrence of the Bishop as the principal Person which was judged necessary as I suppose more upon the account of Unity and Order than from the nature of the thing in its self for taking things in themselves it will follow that whatever power one hath he may transmit to another and therefore there seems to be small reason why one who hath the power of preaching the Gospel and administring Sacraments may not also transmit the same to others and it seems unreasonable so to appropriate this to a Bishop as to annul these Ordinations which were managed by Presbyters where Bishops could not be had Maimonides saith Every one regularly ordained hath power to ordain his Disciples also There remains nothing to be cleared about this from Antiquity save the 13 Canon of the Council of Ancyra which runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Others read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now the difficulty raised about this Canon is this that if the reading be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then it will follow that the Presbyters of the City might have ordained without the Bishops presence if they had his warrant in writing Yea they also infer that it is probable that before that they ordained even without the Bishops warrant to which they were limited by this Canon and upon this Wallo Messalinus triumphs not a little But Blondel chused rather to read the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if the meaning of it were that the Chorepiscopi could not have ordained either Presbyters or Deacons nor the Presbyters of the City without the Bishops Warrant in writing which will infer that they might have done it being so warranted It is true Binnius hath read it so so also hath Gentianus Hervetus as appears by his Latin version of this Council The Arabick Manuscript also favors this And it is directly asserted by Zonaras on this Canon and Aristenus But it is contradicted by the whole tract of Antiquity whom we find all concurring in this that the Chorepiscopi might neither ordain Presbyters nor Deacons without a Bishop as was cleared in its due place Fut for that of Wallo Messalinus it will appear to be ill grounded For first it is certain that the Chorepiscopi were a dignity above Presbyters It will be therefore unreasonable to think that Presbyters could do that which was unlawful to the other Besides how bad an Inference is it from one Canon of a Provincial Council of which there are such various readings to argue for a thing which is not only without any other ground but also contrary to the whole Current of Antiquity And it was but few years after this that in Alexandria the Ordinations given by Colutbus who was but a Presbyter and only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were annulled Now Ancyra being in Asia the lesser and divers Bishops out of Syria being there in particular the Bishops of Antioch and Cesarea who subscribed first how came it that there was no notice of this had at Alexandria to have prevented their severe Sentence in the Case of Colutbus But to consider the readings of the Canon Binius reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Iustellus it is true he hath on the margin aliter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hervetus hath translated it in alienâ Parochia Now if this be the true reading the meaning of it will run thus Whereas by a great many other Canons Presbyters were so tied to their Bishop that no Bishop was to receive the Presbyter of another Bishop without his Bishops Warrant and Licence and his literae pacificae and dimissoriae So here the Presbyters of the City are discharged to go and assist at Ordinations in other Parishes without a written Licence from their own Bishop But as this Canon is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by some so they seem to have added to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that the meaning of it is that the Presbyters of the City might do nothing without the Bishop's Warrant and Licence in writing Thus have both
Romanus held by some a work of the eleventh Century appoints that Children be permitted to eat nothing after they are baptized till they received the Eucharist That same practice is also mentioned by Hugo the S. Victore lib. 1. cap. 20. in the twelfth Century And all the Greek Writers assert the necessity of Childrens receiving the Eucharist and yet none asserted the Eucharist to be but a rite of Baptism Cornelius tells of Novatian apud Eusebium lib. 6. hist. cap. 35. how he was baptized Clinicus and being recovered nec reliquorum particeps factus quae secundum Canones Ecclesiae obtinere debuerat nec ab Episcopo obsignatus est It is true it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if it were explicative of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the former words he said he wanted whence some infer that Confirmation was but one of the Baptismal rites But it is clear that the true reading is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so Nicephorus hath read it quo non impetrato quomodo Spiritum sanctum obtinuisse putandus est Yet from the Story it appears that Confirmation was judged only necessary ad bone esse and not to the esse of a Christian since notwithstanding the want of this Fabian Bishop of Rome ordained Novatian a Presbyter The Greek Euchology shews that such as were baptized were after their baptism anointed and so to be confirmed and it subjoyning that the Eucharist was to be given to them proves no more the one to be a rite of Baptism than the other The whole current of the Fathers runs that in Confirmation the holy Ghost was conferred August de Bapt. cont Donatistas lib. 3. cap. 16. Spiritus sanctus in solâ Catholicâ per manus impositionem dari dicitur which he derives from the Apostles tho these extraordinary effects of speaking of Tongues or the like did not follow upon it Sed invisibiliter latenter per vinculum pacis est eorum cordibus charitas divina inspirata And concludes Quid enim est aliud nisi oratio super hominem And certainly were Confirmation restored according to the Apostolical practice and managed with a primitive sincerity nothing should give more probable hopes of a recovery of the Christian Church out of the darkness and deadness in which it hath continued so long It might quicken persons more seriously to consider to what they were engaged in Baptism when they were put to so solemn a renovation of it But the more denuded it were of all unnecessary rites such as Oil and the like it might be more sutable to the Evangelical Spirit And we see likewise from Antiquity that there is no reason for appropriating this action wholly or only to the Bishop It should not be gone about till the person were ripe in years and not only able by rote to recite a Catechism but of a fitness to receive the Eucharist immediately after But I shall conclude this whole matter with Calvin's words lib. 4. Instit. cap. 19. sect 4. sequentibus where after he hath laid out the primitive practice of Confirmation he subjoins Haec disciplina si bodie valeret profecto parentum quorundam ignavia acueretur qui liberorum institutionem quasi rem nihil ad se pertinentem negligunt quam tum sine publico dedecore omittere non possent Major esset in populo Christiano fidei consensus nec tanta multorum inscitia ruditas non adeo temere quidam novis peregrinis dogmatibus abriparentur omnibus denique esset quaedam velut methodus doctrinae Christianae A SUPPLEMENT ABOUT THE RURAL BISHOPS CALLED CHOREPISCOPI IT hath been already marked that the extent of the Dioceses was not all of one proportion and generally the Villages which lay adjacent to Cities having received the Gospel at first from them continued in subjection to the City as to their Mother Church whereby the Bishops Parish was not limited to the City but did also include the adjacent Villages The inscription of Clemens his Epistles insinuates this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By which we see that the Churches of Rome and Corinth were made up not onely of such as inhabited the Towns but also of such as dwelt about them and this is yet clearer from Ignatius his inscription of his Epistle to the Romans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither did they judg it fit to ordain Bishops in smaller or lesser Cities as appears by the Council of Sardis Can. 6. where it is decreed that a Bishop should not be ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adding that it was not necessary that Bishops should be ordained there lest the name and dignity of a Bishop should be vilipended But before this it was decreed in the Council of Laodicea Can. 57. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so reads the Manuscript of Oxford Dionysius Exiguus Isidore Mercator Hervetus and Iustellus and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel as Binius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who were to do nothing without the knowledg of the Bishop of the City whom the learned Beverigius observes on this Canon to have been distinct from the Rural Bishops which he makes out both from the Civil Law and a place of Gennadius where the Orders of Churchmen being reckoned these circular Visitors are set in a middle rank betwixt the Rural Bishops and Presbyters Frequent mention is also made of these Visitors in the Acts of the Council at Chalcedon This course therefore they took for these Villages to send Presbyters from the City who were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and because the Bishop could not immediately over-see them himself he did therefore substitute a Vicar and Delegate who was generally called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first time that we meet with any of these is in the beginning of the fourth Century in the Councils of Ancyra Neocesarea and Antiochia These differed from Presbyters in that they got an Ordination distinct from theirs called by the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They also might have ordained Subdeacons Lectors and Exorcists and given them commendatory Letters But they differed from Bishops in these things First that they were ordained but by one Bishop as appears by the tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefore it is true that Balsamon calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now we have already seen that a Bishop must be ordained by two Bishops at least Next these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Zonaras And therefore in their subscriptions of the Councils they only design themselves Chorepiscopi without mentioning the place where they served as the Bishops do Now Bishops could not be ordained but with a Title to a particular charge and See Thirdly their power was limited and in many things inferior to the power of Bishops So Pope Leo the first in his 88. Epist. Quamvis cum Episcopis plurima illis ministeriorum communis sit
Isidorus Mercator and Dionysius Exiguns read it as appears by their Latin versions which are Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis licet sine Episcopi praecepto aliquid amplius imperare vel sine authoritate literarum ejus ' in unaquaque Parochiâ aliquid agere And this is according to Binius's Edition of them But in another Edition of Dionysius Exiguus by Iustellus he seems to have read it simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any supplement Another old Latin Edition published by Iustellus hath Sed neque Presbyteris civitatis licere sine jussione Episcopi sed cum ejusdem literis eundi ad singulas Parochias Ioannes Antiochen in his Collectio Canonum reads it simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ferrandus in his Breviatio Canonum Canon 92. cites this part of the Canon thus Ut Presbyteri civitatis sine jussu Episcopi nihil jubeant nec in unaguaque Paroeciâ aliquid agant Alexius Aristinus in his Synopsis hath the first part of the Canon but wants the second part And in his Gloss agrees with Zonaras as was before observed And so doth Simeon Logotheta in his Epitome Canonum And by this diversity of reading it will appear how little ground there is for founding any thing upon this Canon alone especially when that alledged from it is contradicted by undeniable Evidences But as Presbyters might not ordain without Bishops so neither could Bishops ordain without the advice consent and concurrence of their Presbyters Conc. Carth. 4. Canon 22. Ut Episcopus sine concilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non ordinet ita ut cirvium testimonium coâ—â—iventiam quaerat And it was laid to Chrysostone's charge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the Roman Council held by Sylvester if credit be due to the Registers of that Council which are indeed justly questionable it was decreed cap. 11. that one was to be ordained a Presbyter cum omnes Presbyteri declararent firmarent sic ad ordinem Presbyterii accederet And none was to be made a Bishop nisi omnis Clerus expeteret uno voto perenni It is likewise certain that all things were done by the joint advice of Bishop and Presbyters Neither were these wretched contests of the limits of Power much thought on or tossed among them The Bishops pretending to no more than Presbyters were willing to yield to them and Presbyters claiming no more than Bishops were ready to allow them Their contentions lay chiefly with these that were without those intestine Fewds and Broils being reserved for our unhappy days But as we find Cyprian amply declaring how he resolved to do nothing without the consent of his Clergy and People so in the African Churches that course continued longest in vigor Divers instances whereof appear in the 4. Council of Carthage one I have already cited to which I shall add three more Can. 23. Episcopus nullius causans audiat absque praesentiâ Clericorum suorum alioquin irrita erit sententia Episcopi nisi Clericorum praesentiâ confirmetur Can. 34. Episcopus in quolibet loco sedens stare Presbyterum non patiatur And Can. 35. Episcopus in Ecclesiâ in consessu Presbyterorum sublimior sedeat intra domum vero collegam Prebyterorum sese esse cognoscat There were two ranks of Presbyters as clearly appears from the 13. Canon of Neocesareo to wit the Presbyters of the City and the Presbyters of the Country The former were the more eminent in so far that the latter might not consecrate the Eucharist within the Church of the City in their presence which appears from the cited Canon Over the Presbyters of the Country were the Chorepiscopi of whom already but the Presbyters of the City being next at hand were the Bishops Counsel and advisers in all matters The Bishop and they had the oversight of the Souls within the City They were also to be maintained out of the Treasury of the Church and were called Canonici or Praebendarii The reason why they were called Canonici was either because of their regular observing of the course of Worship and hours of Prayer or because of the distributions that were made among them according to the Canon or Rule and from the share that was assigned to them called Praebenda they got the name Praebendarii This Consessus or Collegium Presbyterorum was afterwards designed by the barbarous word Capitulum The chief over them or the Vice praeses next to the Bishop was called Archipresbyter or Decanus Idem quod decurio qui decem militibus praeerat And insensibly the whole Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction crept into their hands The Presbyters of the Country either neglecting it or being neglected in it But without the Capitulum nothing that the Bishop did was valid However when the first servor and vigor of Church Discipline slacken'd avarice and ambition creeping in apace into the Hearts of Churchmen these Chanoins or Praebends not contented with their allowances out of the Church of the City which were too small for their growing desires got Churches in the Country annexed to them and for most part serv'd them by Substitutes except at the return of some solemn Festivities and by this means it was that Church Discipline fell totally into the Bishops hands and the ancient model being laid aside new Courts which were unknown to Antiquity were set up As these of the Arch-deacons Chancellors Officials Surrogates c. However the Praebends though they had deserted their Interest in Church-Discipline yet two things they stuck to because of the advantage and power that followed them The one was the capitular Elections of the Bishop and the other was the meddling with and disposing of the Church Revenues and Treasure But it was a gross Contradiction to the ends of Government that the Bishop alone might manage the Spiritual part of his Charge but must be limited to the advice of his Presbyters for the governing of the Temporality Yet this was a farther proof of that saying Religio peperit divitias filia devoravit matrem And thus far we have seen what Interest Presbyters had within their own Parish mark that at first the Bishops Precinct was called Parish and not Diocese neither was the meeting of the Bishop with his Presbyters called a Synod by which we see how weak that Allegiance is that there were no Diocesan Bishops in the first Centuries it being merely a playing with the word Diocess But let us next consider what Interest Presbyters had in Provincial or National Councils If that of the Acts 15. was a Synod in it we have Presbyter subscribing with the Apostles Brethren are also there added not as if there had been any Laicks elected out of the Laity such as these are who are now vulgarly called Lay-Elders but some more eminent Christians whom as the Apostles call'd then so the Bishops continued afterward to consult and advise with in Ecclesiastick matters But that Presbyters sate in Provincial Synods in the first and purest Ages is undeniably